Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 2, 2014 4:11 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9354254) - GSC's remarks interspersed:><snip>> > You are confusing mathy with gifted.> If I have indeed confused 'mathy' with 'gifted', my regrets.>> By mathy I mean just good at math, at any level.> Naturally, as you go further down the path, the> percentages reduce, for a variety of reasons. A> practical target for algebra 2 would be 10 to 15%. A> theory of education has to assume success, unless you> see value in a theory of unsuccessful education.> Central to that success is a student good at math.> What does good at math mean? It means that as you> teach mathematics they get it. Note, I don?t care how> you teach it, just that you teach it, and that they> get it. Talent (good at math) appears to be a key> factor in that process. I have to work with the data> we have, not the data I wish we had.> The above is too advanced for me. Shall try to understand it better; as noted, my sincere regrets for not having understood it.>> On Jan 1, 2014, at 5:14 AM, GS Chandy<snip>> > Is there some point where you actually get around to> developing an effective educational system. >Do try and read the OPMS documentation provided (either here at Math-teach, previously; or in my forthcoming book and website) more carefully - and actually try to *understand* what has been written with adequate clarity (though it has not yet been interactively presented). It's not impossible to understand, though it may be a bit difficult to apply without *effective* interactive exercises.

I have NEVER ever suggested that I (GSC) would develop an effective educational system. An effective educational system has to be from the good ideas of the stakeholders, and THAT has always been clear.

My good idea is just a practical means (based on the late John N. Warfield's seminal contributions to systems science) for people (regardless of their 'systems background') to put all good ideas effectively together into a workable action plan. (My good idea also enables people to get rid the the bad ideas that floating around, bad ideas like your "Children must be PUSHED to learn math" and the like).

ALL of the above has been quite clearly indicated in all my previous documentation. Apparently you've been so busy lying about whatever I had stated that you've never quite managed to understand what I had actually stated! In the book (and in the forthcoming website), I shall try and make that even more clear.> > Or is> this the whole of your contribution to education?>Yes, NOT what you thought, but what has been actually described in the documentation (and iterated briefly in the above paragraphs).>> That in order to have an effective educational system> one must develop an effective educational system.>Nope. In order to have an effective educational system, stakeholders must learn how to put their good ideas together. (This is rather different from your misstatement above).>> Yes, please ignore my postings. I fear that they are> distracting you from your mission. To design an> effective educational system.> > Bob Hansen>It would indeed be useful and appropriate to ignore all of Robert Hansen's postings where he suggests or implies any of the following:

i) "Children have to be PUSHED to learn math". (They do NOT have to be 'pushed' or 'goaded': they will learn naturally - to whatever extent each of them is capable of - if only the math material is presented carefully [and interestingly], taking their current state of understanding into *effective* consideration. This is based on the premise that "Each child is a 'natural learner'" - check out my note on "How a Child Learns" attached to earlier posts);

ii) The 'traditional' math educational system is the only way to go. (What is needed is to learn how to take what may be good in the traditional system, while ignoring what is bad: there is plenty that is bad; there is some good);

iii) It is impossible to put good ideas together to develop *effective* systems to help us accomplish many of the things that we desire to do in society. (To the contrary, it is ENTIRELY possible to develop *effective* educational and other needed societal systems: one needs primarily to understand and apply real systems science).